On 11-05-29 04:06 AM, Ian Kelly wrote: > I realize you are now asserting that compatibility is a boolean > condition, and that "totally incompatible" is a redundant phrase that > you tossed out as a joke.
As a casual lurker reading this thread, I believe he is equating "completely incompatible" with "not completely compatible." At least, his arguments make more sense if I read him as arguing from the "not completely compatible" position. It's possible he is intentionally equivocating for dramatic effect. But they are different -- both connotatively and denotatively -- and to argue against the claim that Python 2 and 3 are "completely incompatible" it seems to me sufficient to provide a single non-trivial counter-example, which Steven has already done. Cheers, Jason. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
